Agenda item

Hearing to determine an application for the review of a premises licence – Today's Local, 10 Red Lion Square, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 2AJ, Licensing Officers report ENV917.

 

Decision

 

To modify the conditions in respect of Today’s Local, 10 Red Lion Square, Stamford as submitted by the Premises Licence Representative in the supplementary papers to include the following condition: 

 

-        All alcoholic products will not be displayed for sale adjacent to confectionary, snacks and children’s magazines

 

This was to allow more robust and enforceable conditions to be part of the Premise Licence.

 

The Licensing Officer presented the report which concerned an application for the Review of the premises licence for Today’s Local, Stamford which had been received from Lincolnshire Police in August 2025 along with supporting documentation which could be found at Appendix 1 of the report.   The application for the Review related to the licensing objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.  The Police advised that they had obtained evidence that indicated the management of the premises had been operating in such a manner that amounted to criminal activity.  Evidence included:

 

-        Evidence of illegal workers on the premises

-        Breach of Annex 2 Premise Licence conditions relating to the lack of a personal licence holder on site, lack of required signage, CCTV issues and outdated paperwork.

-        Offences under the Price Marking Order Act 2004.

 

During the consultation period a representation from the Home Office was received supporting the Police’s application that the licence holder was not taking suitable measures to prevent crime and disorder, their representation included evidence of a visit made in October 2023 whereby an individual was located on the premises who subsequently had no right to work in the UK.   A further visit to the premise in November 2024 raised concerns that there were further illegal workers involved with the premises as shown at Appendix 2.  No other comments from members of the public or responsible authorities were made.

 

A copy of the current Premise Licence was appended at Appendix 3 which permitted the Sale of Alcohol off the premises from 06:00 to 02:00 Monday to Sunday with the same opening hours.

 

The Premise Licence was originally granted in 2011 and Arumugam Kalamohan was the Premise Licence Holder and Designated Premise Supervisor (DPS) at the time.  Arumugam Kalamohan was removed as the DPS after August 2012 but remained the Premise Licence Holder.  In September 2022 there was a Transfer of Premise Licence Holder from Arumugam Kalamohan to Mohan Retail Ltd, for which Arumugam Kalamohan is the sole trader.  The current DPS at the premise is Santhosh Sekar.

 

There was a history on record of concerns with the premises following visits made.  Reports relate to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and the Protection of Children from Harm licensing objectives.   This included alleged underage sales taking place, as well as concerns regarding the immigration status of individuals seen at the premise.

 

-        In April 2021 correspondence from the agent for the licence holder and the Police following a visit from South Kesteven District Council and Police after concerns had been reported Appendix 4 of the report supplied details.

-        August 2021 a report regarding alleged underage sales taking place and Appendix 5 of the report supplied details.

-        Correspondence from June 2022 with some temporary interim measures to be informally adhered to after a meeting with the Premise Licence Holder and the Police following a visit and concerns raised.  Appendix 6 to the report supplied details.

-        Correspondence from September 2022 between the Premise Licence Holder and Police in relation to some alleged thefts of alcohol and anti-social behaviour incidents appearing to involve underage children, Members were referred to Appendix 7 of the report for more details.

 

Members were reminded of the key considerations at outlined within the report at paragraph 3 and the guidance issued under Section 182:

 

“In deciding which of these powers to invoke, it is expected that licensing authorities should, so far as possible, seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns which the representations identify.  The remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response.” – Paragraph 11.20

 

There were no questions for the Licensing Officer from any of the parties present.

 

Sergeant Adams from Lincolnshire Police then made the Police’s representation.  The Review had been submitted on the grounds that the Police had obtained evidence which indicated that the management of the premises had been operated in such a manner that amounted to criminal activity and undermined the licensing objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.  Reference was made to the change of DPS since 2011 and also the Premise Licence Holder was now in the name of Mohan Retail Ltd, for which Arumugam Kalamohan is the sole trader.  Members attention was drawn to the compliance visits that had been undertaken at the premises and other premises owned by Mr Kalamohan and which were listed within the supporting documents appended to the report.   At a compliance visit in August 2023 the immigration status of a lone worker was in question although not enough detail was known to take any action or confirm that he did not have the right to work in the premise.  Emails were sent to Mr Kalamohan following the visit informing of the areas of non-compliance and requesting that they be addressed.  A compliance visit took place in October 2023 and a lone worker encountered was arrested by Immigration as an overstayer (the same lone worker who had been in the premise previously) and the same non-compliance issues were again discovered. Although the Immigration case was referred to the Home Office Civil Penalty Compliance Team no further action was taken.    The Police believed that the worker encountered was working without the correct right to work entitlement which did amount to a crime. 

 

In November 2024 a Police inspection was carried out with Immigration Officers and various non-compliance of conditions were discovered and included the absence of a premises licence on site, the absence of a personal licence holder on site, CCTV issues, an invalid PDS authority, a disorganised and outdated refusals register, lack of shop signage and alcohol found on sale in areas of the shop where it was not permitted.  The shop worker at the time was checked by Immigration and found to be legally entitled to work, a suspicious male was encountered outside the shop and on checking his details had no right to work, however, at the time there was no direct evidence linking the male to working in the premise although he did have Mr Kalamohan’s bank card in his phone case.

 

Town CCTV footage was requested by the Police in respect of the premises for a three hour period on 7 November 2024 to establish if the suspicious male with no right to work had indeed been working.  A list of staff was also requested by the Police and this was provided by Mr Kalamohan but did not have the male on the list.  CCTV was requested of the premises for specific hours however although a CCTV storage device was provided to the Police it did not contain footage of the premise.  Mr Kalamohan stated that he had attempted to re-copy but it had dropped off the system.  The Police’s concern was that this may have been a deliberate act of avoidance on Mr Kalamohan’s part to provide CCTV to prevent the Police discovering that the male had been working in the premise.  The Police felt this was a breach of conditions as per Appendix 9.  In November 2024 the Police received a DPS variation for the premises from Ms Rasathurai to a Thasatharan Armirthalingham which the Police felt may have been a tactic deployed by Mr Kalamohan to relinquish his responsibility for failings at the premise.

 

A further Police inspection took place in June 2025 where virtually the same non-compliance issues were found as found in November 2024.  When the visit took place the DPS was Santhosh Sekar, with a variation to the DPS being applied for in April 2025.

 

The Police felt that during all the visits to the premises non-compliance of the annex 2 licence had been found together with issues around non-priced alcohol had been witnessed which was an offence under the Price Marking Order Act 2004. 

 

It was stated that Mr Kalamohan had been the Premises Licence Holder at the times that the premise had been visited with concerns raised by the Police with Mr Kalamohan about the non-compliance issues on various occasions and issues with not having the necessary paperwork as required by the Licensing Act in respect of right to work documents, training, signage.  The Police questioned the audit that had been undertaken and the conclusions found by the audit in respect of the premises only being partially compliant when Mr Kalamohan had been repeatedly told about the non-compliance issues.  The Police felt the licensing objectives were being serious undermined at the premise by Mr Kalamohan and had been for some considerable time and they asked the Committee to seriously consider revocation of the Premise Licence.

 

Questions were asked of the Police from the Premises Licence Holder representative in respect of enforcing proof of age and the location of products in the premise.

 

The Immigration Officer then made their representation and referred to the visits to the premises that had taken place and the right to work checks undertaken on those found within the premise.  It was confirmed that on the joint visit in November 2024 the worker present did have a right to work in the UK and it was confirmed that the £10,000 fine that had been referred to previously had been paid in full.

 

The representative for the Premise Licence Holder, Duncan Craig then made their representation.  Members were drawn to Annex 3 of the Premise Licence where it was noted that the premises before the Committee had never been reviewed previously and therefore there was nothing contained in Annex 3 where conditions following a review hearing would be shown.

 

It was noted that the conditions currently appended to the Premise Licence had been in place when the Licensing Act 2003 had come into force and some of the conditions were poorly worded and not precise or enforceable in their current format and were not fit for purpose which had been referenced within the Police’s review of the Premise Licence.  Within the supplementary papers circulated were a set of conditions which were proposed to replace the existing conditions on the Premise Licence which included checks in respect of Right to Work documentation which was missing in the current conditions.  The conditions proposed were in an enforceable format and covered CCTV, recording and retention periods, right to work checks, training records, challenge 25, refresher training, alcohol refusals register, incident book, refusals policy, displaying signage and checking and monitoring the area immediately outside the premises.  Reference was made to breaches as outlined by the Police but due to the conditions currently worded on the licence it was hard for these to be enforced.  Further comments were made in relation to the visits made to the premises and those found working and that there was no evidence to support that the individual located outside the shop actually worked in the premise and no civil penalty was imposed by the Immigration Office.

 

It was noted that due to the compliance issues and the number of premises owned by Mr Kalamohan it was recognised that an area manager needed to be in place to deal with compliance issues.  It was denied that changes to DPS’s were a tactical move by the Premises Licence Holder.  Duncan Craig then made reference to the conditions proposed and also the audit that had been undertaken and that the staff present during the audit had been competent and knowledgeable.  Comment was made about the licensable area and a further condition was offered to enable this to be enforced:

 

That alcohol products will not be displayed for sale adjacent to confectionery, snacks and children’s magazines.

 

Duncan Craig stated that the current conditions on the licence needed to be modified and he reminded the Committee that the premise had not been reviewed previously and that a stepped approach should be taken which was appropriate and proportionate.

 

Clarification was sought on whether prior notification of the audit was known and it was confirmed that the audit was known about.

 

Further questions were asked in respect of incident records, refusal logs, criminal and anti-social behaviour and it was reiterated that that current conditions were difficult to enforce.

 

Questions were then raised by the Police in respect of the individual found outside the premise and why CCTV had not been provided, the number of employees employed at the Red Lion Square premise and why right to work checks were only carried out after the visit.   

 

The Immigration Officer reiterated the need for right to work checks and the requirement of the employer to carry out these checks.

 

(As the meeting had reached the three hour mark Members agreed to continue until the meeting concluded)

 

The Licensing Officer then gave her closing statement reminding the Committee that each application should be determined on its own merits and the steps available to the Committee:

 

-        modify the conditions of the licence;

-        exclude a licensable activity from the licence (although as the licence only permits one licensable activity excluding this would render it void);

-        remove the designated premises supervisor;

-        suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months; or

-        revoke the licence.

 

The guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act stated:

 

“In deciding which of these powers to invoke, it is expected that licensing authorities should, so far as possible, seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns which the representations identify. The remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response.”    (Paragraph 11.20)

The Legal Advisor made reference to the request for CCTV by the Police and which condition this related to, as the current condition only stipulated that CCTV be in place on site and the current condition did not make reference to supplying copies of footage.

 

Sergeant Adams on behalf of the Police then made a closing statement making reference to the non-compliance of conditions on the premises which continued to be outstanding and that there was no excuse for the Premises Licence holder not to address this and work with the Police.  Changes to the DPS had not resolved problems at the premise which the Police felt was poorly managed with inadequate conditions.  The Police had no confidence in the Premises Licence Holder and that the licensing objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder was being undermined and they asked the Committee to consider revocation of the Premise Licence.

 

The Immigration Officer had nothing to add.

 

Duncan Craig then made a closing statement on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder.  He made reference to the compliance found during the audit and reiterated that there was no evidence of illegal workers found at the premises and due to the wording of the current conditions there had been no breaches in respect of CCTV.  Mr Craig then went through each proposed condition as circulated in the supplementary papers including the modified condition in respect of the licensable area:

 

That alcohol products will not be displayed for sale adjacent to confectionery, snacks and children’s magazines.

 

The premise had been in situ for 20 years and had not been reviewed during this time.  There was no evidence of illegal workers and he felt that it was not appropriate or proportionate to revoke the premise licence.  He asked the Committee to modify the licence with the new conditions submitted which had been robustly worded including the modified condition submitted during the course of the meeting.

 

(3:08 the Licensing Officers and all parties left the meeting)

 

Members considered the Review before them having regard to all the relevant policies, guidance and the representations made.  Members noted that the conditions as currently shown on the premise licence were not enforceable and the premise had not previously been subjected to a review.  The conditions supplied as a supplement were more stringent, robust and enforceable.  It was also noted that reference had been made to the appointment of an area manager to ensure compliance with the premise licences of those premises owned by Mr Kalamohan.  Reference was also made to the extra condition offered during the representation in respect of where alcohol was situated in relation to confectionary, snacks and children’s magazines.  Members felt that the conditions offered were robust and it was proposed, seconded and agreed to modify the premises licence to include to the new conditions offered plus the extra condition.  On being put to the vote this was unanimously agreed.

 

(15:25 the Licensing Officers and all parties returned to the meeting)

 

The Committee had read all the paperwork before them and had heard from the Licensing Officer, Lincolnshire Police, Immigration and the Premises licence holder’s representative.

 

Lincolnshire Police presented their application as set out in their evidence pack. They expressed concerns regarding the non-compliance of conditions and noted a lone worker at the premises on 2 August 2023 who was referred to the National Command and Control Unit. A visit on 3 October 2023 found the same lone worker and non-compliances as found at the previous visit. Further non-compliances were found at visits on 7 November 2024 and 17 June 2025. The police referred in their evidence pack to other premises controlled by the licence holder where there have been non-compliances found.

 

Immigration advised about previous visits to the premises.  

 

The Premises Licence holder’s representative set out the evidence in their report noting that the premises had not previously been reviewed and had no further conditions on. They also discussed the conditions on the licence which were not enforceable offering up new enforceable conditions. There was no evidence of an illegal worker at the premises. In terms of the conditions there was no evidence of non-compliance with the CCTV condition.

 

The Committee considered all options available to them. They considered that the conditions offered by the premises licence (those contained in the papers) along with the addition of the following condition;

 

·             All alcoholic products will not be displayed for sale adjacent to confectionary, snacks and children’s magazines.

 

were sufficient to address their concerns in relation to this premises and inclusion on the licence was appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

There was a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the licence decision being received.